Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windsor Cricket Club
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Windsor Cricket Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable club according to standards on WP:CRIN. StAnselm (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - WP:CRIN isn't a Wikipedia guideline or policy and shouldn't be cited as a reason for deletion. The relevant guideline is WP:N - "significant coverage in reliable independent sources" - which it meets through sources here, here, and here, among others. - DustFormsWords (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The first link was from 1924, whereas the club described in the article formed in 1995. The other two are from the Royal Borough Observer, which is a (non-notable) local newspaper - and therefore not an independent source. StAnselm (talk) 09:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll pay you that the 1924 link is pretty clearly an accidental synthesis on my part. But for the Royal Borough Observer, there's no requirement for a reliable source to be either notable or non-local. Generally speaking local notability is still notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 09:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, as to the first link, it looks like it's talking about one of the clubs that contributed to the merger. As to local newspapers - in Melbourne, where I live, virtually every sporting team at every level is reported in a local newspaper. So, seeing the guideline (but not policy) of restricting ourselves to grade-level teams, that seemed to go along with restricting coverage to city-wide newspapers. Which is probably a circular argument... StAnselm (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and WP:ORG says that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." StAnselm (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll pay you that the 1924 link is pretty clearly an accidental synthesis on my part. But for the Royal Borough Observer, there's no requirement for a reliable source to be either notable or non-local. Generally speaking local notability is still notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 09:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The club is an amalgamation of clubs with a longer history and several name changes. The nomination does not seem to have engaged with the topic in detail - it's just a cookie cutter drive-by with no basis in policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.